An interventional study of Cancer Peer and Clinician Messages and Public Service Announcement Messages in Cancer and Cancer Survivors, sponsored by UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 22 Years to 39 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-11-10.
Sponsored by UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center · Not applicable, Interventional, and Other
Young adults with cancer experience more loneliness than their non-cancer peers or older cancer survivors. Positive psychology interventions have promise to increase social connectedness; however, evidence-based interventions should be tailored for young adults with cancer and designed for social media. The investigators conducted an online experiment with young adults with cancer (ages 22-39) to examine the most promising message types with personal stories to identify a suite of intervention messages that encourage positive, in-person social interactions with strangers and acquaintances (i.e., weak ties).
This is a between-person online experiment where connected peer advocate and clinician framing and cancer-specific personal stories were used for intervention messages compared to control messages. Participants were randomized (Qualtrics built-in randomizer) evenly to 1 of 4 message panels: intervention panel 1, intervention panel 2, control panel 1, or control panel 2. The investigators hypothesized that intervention messages (vs. control) would lead to greater perceived message effectiveness and intended message reactions.
10,818 studies on the registry are indexed under Neoplasms; 2,324 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 207 is above the median of 60 across 7,703 interventional studies indexed under Neoplasms.
Browse Neoplasms studies →UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center is the lead sponsor of 429 studies on the registry; 97 are open to participants now.
Of its 33 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 26 (79%) have results posted.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
Participants are randomized to 1 of 2 intervention panels to view and rate 9 social media posts: 6 from socially connected cancer peer advocates and 3 from clinicians, each with a cancer story and advice to have positive in-person interactions with people they barely know.
Behavioral: Cancer Peer and Clinician Messages
Participants are randomized to 1 of 2 control panels and view and rate 9 public service announcement posts about food safety or password safety.
Behavioral: Public Service Announcement Messages
Participants were randomized to 1 of 4 message panels (intervention 1, intervention 2, control 1, control 2).
Participants were randomized to 1 of 4 message panels (intervention 1, intervention 2, control 1, control 2).
Perceived Message Effectiveness for In-Person Interactions (Single-Item Self-Report, 5-Point Scale)
After viewing each of 9 social media posts, participants answered one item: "How much does this post make you want to interact in person with people you barely know? (This doesn't include online interactions.)" Response options ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much); higher scores indicate greater perceived message effectiveness for in-person interactions. Ratings were compared across experimental conditions and message types.
Time frame: Baseline, Up to 1 hour
Positive Affect (Single-Item Self-Report, 5-Point Scale)
After viewing each of 9 social media posts, participants answered one item: "How good does viewing this post make you feel?" Response options ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much); higher scores indicate greater positive affect. Ratings were compared across experimental conditions and message types.
Time frame: Baseline, Up to 1 hour
Perceived Social Presence (single item adapted from Lazard et al., 2020; 5-point agreement scale)
After viewing each of 9 social media posts, participants answered one item: "When viewing this post, how much do you feel as if someone is talking to you?" Response options ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much); higher scores indicate greater perceived social presence. Ratings were compared across experimental conditions and message types.
Time frame: Baseline, Up to 1 hour
Message Relevance (Single Item Adapted From Jensen et al., 2024; 5-Point Scale)
After viewing each of 9 social media posts, participants answered one item: "How relevant is this post to you?" Response options ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much); higher scores indicate greater perceived relevance. Ratings were compared across experimental conditions and message types.
Time frame: Baseline, Up to 1 hour
Perceived Message Effectiveness for Online Interactions (Single-Item Self-Report, 5-Point Scale)
After viewing each of 9 social media posts, participants answered one item: "How much does this post make you want to interact online with people you barely know? (Online includes on social media.)" Response options ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much); higher scores indicate greater perceived message effectiveness for online interactions. Ratings were compared across experimental conditions and message types.
Time frame: Baseline, Up to 1 hour
Plan to share: No
Ran from Oct 2025 to primary completion in Jan 2026, 2 months.
Of 1,981 non-industry interventional studies with no phase under Neoplasms, half reached primary completion within 29 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 13 and three quarters within 52. This study's 2 months is below that.
Counting every sponsor, half of 2,056 studies reached it within 29 months; a quarter within 13 and three quarters within 52.
Neoplasms covers many different conditions, not one, so the studies compared here vary widely. Read these figures as a rough guide.
How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.
From the registry record's own update history. This site started tracking changes on Sep 25, 2026; for anything earlier, see the record history on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
This study is completed, as verified in Nov 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center →